Page 43 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 257 (Telangana)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
M.S. Ramachandra Rao and T. Amarnath Goud, JJ.
COMMERCIAL STEEL COMPANY
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX

Writ Petition No. 2161 of 2020, decided on 4-3-2020
Detention of vehicle and goods - Vehicle found in wrong destination -
Does not automatically lead to any presumption that there was intention on
part of assessee to sell goods at local market evading tax - Invoice in custody of
driver of vehicle indicating that IGST @ 18% already collected and goods were
coming from Karnataka to Balanagar in Hyderabad - Such goods not to be
treated as having escaped tax and fresh tax and penalty cannot be imposed on
assessee - No warrant to detain vehicle along with goods, demand payment tax
and penalty - Assessee making payment owing to wedding ceremony in his
family at that point of time in order to be able to secure release of vehicle car-
rying goods at instance of driver of vehicle - Such payment to be presumed as
one made due to economic duress and assessee cannot be blamed for paying
amount without protest - No good and sufficient reasons for detention of vehi-
cle and goods which it was carrying when the transaction causing movement
of goods was inter-State in nature and provisions of SGST not shown to have
been violated - No warrant to levy any penalty as no willfulness in conduct of
dealer - Collection tax and penalty arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 265 and
300A of Constitution of India - Amount collected to be refunded with 6% per
annum - Section 129(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - It is set-
tled law that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law as per Article
226 of the Constitution of India. [1990 (49) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) relied on]. [paras 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]
Strictures against Department - Assistant Commissioner - Collection of
tax without authority of law - Direction to Higher Authority to consider initiat-
ing disciplinary action against Assistant Commissioner. [paras 27, 30]
Petition allowed

CASE CITED
Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1990 (49) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ...................... [Para 26]
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  163